DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed Nov. 25, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 8-13, see Remarks filed Nov 25, 2025, has been considered but are persuasive only in part. Applicant argues (p. 4 “Section 112(b) Rejection” to 3rd para. P. 5) that the recitation “equidistantly varying” in claim 8 is definite when read in light of the specification; Examiner agrees. However, the clause “evaluating the received optical reception signals as a function of respective maximum values of the associated optical reception signals” in claim 8 and “the evaluation is carried out as a function of a factor for each of the respective maximum values” in claim 11 is indefinite. Applicant argued (Remarks, p. 6, 4th -7th para.) that a POSITA would understand these clauses in view of paragraphs [0069] and [0081] of the Specification. Examiner disagrees; the cited paragraphs do not give sufficient detail as to how the factor is applied to evaluate the received optical reception signals. Para. [0069] merely recites “Typically using corresponding heuristics.” but no examples of heuristics are given. While para. [0081] states “..maximum value 402 and mean value 702” are each adapted with the aid of a factor 703, 704” but does not specify what the factor is or how it is determined. Therefore , a POSITA would not know whether a particular evaluation is within the metes and bound of the claim. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 8-13 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 8-11, see Remarks, p. 7, and 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bitan et al. (US 2020/0349728).
With regard to claims 8-9, Bitan discloses a method for evaluating optical reception signals (Fig. 4), comprising:
Emitting multiple optical emission signals for reception as optical reception signals, the emission signals being emitted equidistantly varying (430, light source emitted light at lowest (first) modulation frequency). The optical emission signals are emitted at a time internal in a relation to one another which is dependent on a predetermined unambiguous range (first frequency is selected based on maximal depth range, para. [0039-0040]).
Receiving optical reception signals (440, capture reflected TOF light energy in ROI pixels)
Associating the received optical reception signals with the multiple optical emission signals (compute phase shift between emitted and reflected light [0041]);
Evaluating the received optical reception signals as a function of respective maximum values (or threshold for the respective maximum) of the associated optical reception signals (para. [0059-0060]).
With regard to claims 10-11, the evaluation is carried out as a function of a factor (output of final range values depends on statistical distribution parameters satisfying a predetermined criterion, para. [0011-0013]). The choice of final range outputs is effectively a prefiltering operation.
With regard to claim 12, Bitan discloses (Fig. 1 & para. [0072-0074]) a non-transitory electronic memory medium (132) on which is stored a computer program for evaluating optical reception signals, the computer program, when executed by a computer (e. g. processing circuit 134), causing the computer to perform the following steps (Fig. 4):
Emitting multiple optical emission signals for reception as optical reception signal, the emission signals being emitted equidistantly varying in that the optical emission signals are emitted at a time interval in relation to one another which is dependent on a predetermined unambiguous range of a system (430, light source emitted light at lowest (first) modulation frequency, para. [0039-0040]);
Receiving optical reception signals (440, capture reflected TOF light energy in ROI pixels);
Associating the received optical reception signals with the multiple optical emission signals (compute phase shift between emitted and reflected light [0041]); and
Evaluating the received optical reception signals as a function of respective maximum values of the associated optical reception signals (para. [0059-0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitan et al. (US 2020/0349728) in view of Beuschel et al. (US 2007/0115166).
With regard to claim 13, Bitan discloses a circuit (Fig. 1, (134)) configured to evaluate optical reception signals, the circuit configured to:
Emitting multiple optical emission signals for reception as optical reception signal, the emission signals being emitted equidistantly varying in that the optical emission signals are emitted at a time interval in relation to one another which is dependent on a predetermined unambiguous range of a system (430, light source emitted light at lowest (first) modulation frequency, para. [0039-0040]);
Receiving optical reception signals (440, capture reflected TOF light energy in ROI pixels);
Associating the received optical reception signals with the multiple optical emission signals (compute phase shift between emitted and reflected light [0041]); and
Evaluating the received optical reception signals as a function of respective maximum values of the associated optical reception signals (para. [0059-0060]).
Bitan does not specifically disclose, but Beuschel et al. teach in the same field of endeavor that a circuit for modulating emitted light and is an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC, para. [0018]). Advantages of ASIC include that it may be optimized for speed and efficiency, as well as using less power and less space on a circuit board. Therefore, one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical or electrical engineer, knowing of these advantages and how the ASIC is used in the optical distance finding system of Beuschel et al. would have found it obvious to choose ASIC as the circuit in the optical system of Bitan, before the effective filing date of the application.
Note that the citations made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant; they are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights